Design of a randomized clinical trial of concurrent treatment with vitamin K2 and risedronate compared to risedronate alone in osteoporotic patients: Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial-03 (JOINT-03)

Risedronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Risedronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2003.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures for postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk for fractures, respectively.

SEARCH METHODS

With broader and updated strategies, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase. A grey literature search, including the online databases ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and drug approval agencies, as well as bibliography checks of relevant systematic reviews was also performed. Eligible trials published between 1966 to 24 March 2021 were identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of risedronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Participants must have received at least one year of risedronate, placebo or other anti-osteoporotic drugs, with or without concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. In the interest of clinical relevance and applicability, we classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled more than one of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, low bone mineral density (BMD)T score ≤ -2.5, and age ≥ 75 years old. If none of these criteria was met, the study was considered to be primary prevention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We pooled the relative risk (RR) of fractures using a fixed-effect model based on the expectation that the clinical and methodological characteristics of the respective primary and secondary prevention studies would be homogeneous, and the experience from the previous review suggesting that there would be a small number of studies. The base case included the data available for the longest treatment period in each placebo-controlled trial and a >15% relative change was considered clinically important. The main findings of the review were presented in summary of findings tables, using the GRADE approach. In addition, we looked at benefit and harm comparisons between different dosage regimens for risedronate and between risedronate and other anti-osteoporotic drugs.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-three trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria, among which 33 studies (27,348 participants) reported data that could be extracted and quantitatively synthesized. We had concerns about particular domains of risk of bias in each trial. Selection bias was the most frequent concern, with only 24% of the studies describing appropriate methods for both sequence generation and allocation concealment. Fifty per cent and 39% of the studies reporting benefit and harm outcomes, respectively, were subject to high risk. None of the studies included in the quantitative syntheses were judged to be at low risk of bias in all seven domains. The results described below pertain to the comparisons for daily risedronate 5 mg versus placebo which reported major outcomes. Other comparisons are described in the full text. For primary prevention, low- to very low-certainty evidence was collected from four studies (one to two years in length) including 989 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Risedronate 5 mg/day may make little or no difference to wrist fractures [RR 0.48 ( 95% CI 0.03 to 7.50; two studies, 243 participants); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 7% more)] and withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.18; three studies, 748 participants); ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 5% fewer to 1% more)], based on low-certainty evidence. However, its preventive effects on non-vertebral fractures and serious adverse events are not known due to the very low-certainty evidence. There were zero clinical vertebral and hip fractures reported therefore the effects of risedronate for these outcomes are not estimable.  For secondary prevention, nine studies (one to three years in length) including 14,354 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided evidence. Risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fractures [RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.90; six studies, 12,173 participants); RRR 20% (95% CI 10% to 28%) and ARR 2% fewer (95% CI 1% fewer to 3% fewer), moderate certainty], and may reduce hip fractures [RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); RRR 27% (95% CI 6% to 44%) and ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 0.2% fewer to 1% fewer), low certainty]. Both of these effects are probably clinically important. However, risedronate's effects are not known for wrist fractures [RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.33 to 1.24); three studies,1746 participants); ARR 1% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more), very-low certainty] and not estimable for clinical vertebral fractures due to zero events reported (low certainty). Risedronate results in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events [RR 0.98 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; eight studies, 9529 participants); ARR 0.3% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 1% more); 16.9% in risedronate versus 17.2% in control, high certainty] and probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events [RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; six studies, 9435 participants); ARR 0% fewer (95% CI 2% fewer to 2% more; 29.2% in both groups, moderate certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update recaps the key findings from our previous review that, for secondary prevention, risedronate 5 mg/day probably prevents non-vertebral fracture, and may reduce the risk of hip fractures. We are uncertain on whether risedronate 5mg/day reduces clinical vertebral and wrist fractures.  Compared to placebo, risedronate probably does not increase the risk of serious adverse events.  For primary prevention, the benefit and harms of risedronate were supported by limited evidence with high uncertainty.

Is vitamin K2 a treatment choice for atypical femoral fractures in patients with secondary osteoporosis?

An atypical femoral fracture (AFF) is a rare complication associated with excessive inhibition of osteoclast expression during treatment of osteoporosis. We herein describe a patient who had been treated with alendronate for more than 10 years and subsequently developed an AFF that healed after treatment with vitamin K₂ (VK2). We also discuss the potential beneficial effects of VK2 on the healing of AFFs. A 48-year-old Asian man with secondary osteoporosis was treated with alendronate for more than 10 years. The patient underwent surgical treatment for a complete AFF of the right femur. Six months postoperatively, he complained of pain in his left thigh. X-ray examination revealed an incomplete AFF of the left femoral shaft. He was then treated with VK2. After 4 months of VK2 treatment, the patient reported that the pain in his left thigh had decreased, and follow-up X-ray examination demonstrated healing of the left AFF line. This case report indicates that VK2 may be a potential direction for pharmacological treatment of AFFs in future research.

Effect of estradiol on high glucose‑induced osteoblast injury

Estradiol (E2) serves an important role in the changes of postmenopausal bone turnover rate and the development of osteoporosis. The present study aimed to investigate the effects of E2 on high glucose (HG)‑induced osteoblast injury. Cell Counting Kit‑8 was used to determine cell viability. Reverse transcription‑quantitative PCR (RT‑qPCR) and western blotting was used to analyze the mRNA and protein expression levels of osteocalcin, Runt‑related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), nuclear factor E2‑related factor 2 (Nrf2) and heme oxygenase‑1 (HO1). Flow cytometry was performed to analyze apoptosis. The results revealed that cell viability was lower in cells treated with HG (100, 200 or 300 mg/dl) compared with the control group. Cell viability was decreased in cells treated with 200 mg/dl HG on days 3, 5 and 7. In addition, cell viability was increased by 0.1 µM E2. E2 with HG co‑treatment increased cell viability, osteocalcin and Runx2 mRNA expression levels and nuclear Nrf2 and HO1 protein expression levels compared with the HG‑only group. All these changes, with the exception of Runx2, were reversed by silencing Nrf2 expression using small interfering (si)RNA (siNrf2). Additionally, apoptosis was reduced by E2 in HG‑treated cells, which was reversed by siNrf2 transfection. These results demonstrated that E2 may prevent HG‑induced osteoblast injury by activating Nrf2/HO1 signaling pathways.

Comparison of concurrent treatment with vitamin K2 and risedronate compared with treatment with risedronate alone in patients with osteoporosis: Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial-03

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of concurrent treatment with vitamin K₂ and risedronate compared with treatment with risedronate alone in patients with osteoporosis and to explore subsets of patients for which concurrent treatment is particularly efficacious. Women with osteoporosis aged 65 years or older were recruited from 123 institutes in Japan and allocated to take either vitamin K₂ (45 mg/day) and risedronate (2.5 mg/day or 17.5 mg/week) or risedronate (2.5 mg/day or 17.5 mg/week) alone. The primary end point was the incidence of any fracture (vertebral and nonvertebral). The secondary end points were bone mineral density, height, undercarboxylated osteocalcin concentration, quality of life, and safety. Over a 2-year follow-up, vertebral or nonvertebral fractures occurred in 117 or 22 sites respectively among 931 patients in the risedronate and vitamin K₂ group and in 104 or 26 sites respectively among 943 patients in the risedronate alone group. The rates of any incident fracture were similar between the two groups (incidence rate ratio 1.074, 95 % confidence interval 0.811-1.422, p = 0.62), implying that the primary end point was not met. There were no differences in the degree of increase in bone mineral density between the two groups. Undercarboxylated osteocalcin concentration decreased from 5.81 ± 3.93 ng/mL to 2.59 ± 1.52 ng/mL at 6 months in the risedronate and vitamin K₂ group, whereas the change in the risedronate alone group was minimal (from 5.96 ± 4.36 ng/mL to 4.05 ± 3.40 ng/mL at 6 months) (p < 0.01). The treatment discontinuation rate was higher in the risedronate and vitamin K₂ group than in the risedronate alone group (10.0 % vs 6.7 %). No unknown adverse drug reactions were reported. In conclusion, concurrent treatment with vitamin K₂ and risedronate was not efficacious compared with monotherapy with risedronate in terms of fracture prevention.

Health state utility values and patient-reported outcomes before and after vertebral and non-vertebral fractures in an osteoporosis clinical trial

We assessed the health state utility value (HSUV) reductions associated with vertebral fractures using data collected in the Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial-03 (JOINT-03). Our analysis revealed that assessment of HSUVs after morphometric vertebral fracture is important to capture the burden of vertebral fractures.

INTRODUCTION

Evaluation of the HSUV after fracture is important to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of osteoporosis patients, which is essential information in the context of health economic evaluation.

METHODS

JOINT-03 study patients were aged ≥65 years and treated with risedronate and vitamin K₂ or risedronate alone. Radiographic information and patient-reported outcomes measured by EQ-5D and a visual analogue scale (VAS) were assessed at registration and followed up after 6, 12, and 24 months. According to differences among the dates of these assessments and the radiographic information, we classified the follow-up HSUVs calculated based on EQ-5D results into before or after fracture categories regardless of clinical symptoms.

RESULTS

Among 2922 follow-up HSUVs, 201 HSUVs were categorized as HSUVs that were observed after incident vertebral fractures on X-ray films. The median time from the detection of an incident vertebral fracture until the EQ-5D assessment was 53 days (25th percentile, 0 day; 75th percentile, 357 days). The impact of incident vertebral fractures on HSUVs was quantified as -0.03. Among the five health profile domains on the EQ-5D, an incident vertebral fracture had significant effects on anxiety/depression, self-care, and usual activities.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that incident morphometric vertebral fracture was associated with impairment of the HSUV for patients with osteoporosis not only immediately but also several months after the fracture.

Warfarin and Vascular Calcification

The vitamin K antagonist, warfarin, is the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant. Use of warfarin is associated with an increase in systemic calcification, including in the coronary and peripheral vasculature. This increase in vascular calcification is due to inhibition of the enzyme matrix gamma-carboxyglutamate Gla protein (MGP). MGP is a vitamin K-dependent protein that ordinarily prevents systemic calcification by scavenging calcium phosphate in the tissues. Warfarin-induced systemic calcification can result in adverse clinical effects. In this review article, we highlight some of the key translational and clinical studies that associate warfarin with vascular calcification.

Impact of Osteonecrosis of the Jaw on Osteoporosis Treatment in Japan: Results of a Questionnaire-Based Survey by the Adequate Treatment of Osteoporosis (A-TOP) Research Group

Dentists request a discontinuation of antiresorptive agents, such as bisphosphonate, before and after tooth extractions to prevent osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). However, little is known about how this affects ONJ and osteoporosis treatment and how medical professionals and dentists cooperate to treat ONJ in patients with osteoporosis. This study aimed to clarify the impact of ONJ on osteoporosis treatment in Japan. A structured questionnaire including 14 key clinical queries was sent to 488 medical professionals as part of the Japanese Osteoporosis Intervention Trial (JOINT)-04, and 206 responses were received. A total of 173 respondents had received discontinuation requests from dentists. Of these, 28 respondents experienced 30 adverse events including ten fractures and one incidence of ONJ. The respondents who refused discontinuation requests observed no cases of ONJ. Approximately 16 % of respondents had patients who discontinued osteoporosis treatment, following a requested drug discontinuation, after tooth extraction. Dentists requested discontinuations for many medications that were not associated with the incidence of ONJ. Approximately 76 % of respondents had never requested oral health care from dentists before osteoporosis treatment and 72 % reported no cooperation between dentists and medical professionals in their region. Our results suggest that drug discontinuation may increase adverse events and disturb osteoporosis treatment without completely preventing ONJ. Currently, both medical professionals and dentists in Japan still continue to recommend their own treatment position. A forum to share information about ONJ among medical professionals, dentists, and patients is required.